Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DepartedUser4 (talk | contribs) at 15:10, 18 May 2008 (→Wikinfo: Support for a move to the Misplaced Pages namespace). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:10, 18 May 2008 by DepartedUser4 (talk | contribs) (→Wikinfo: Support for a move to the Misplaced Pages namespace)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Wikinfo

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.
AfDs for this article:
Wikinfo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A cursory search on the subject suggests a lack of notability; no sources in mainstream news and only trivial coverage in the blogosphere. Most of the inline references don't mention the subject or *are* the subject. Celarnor 01:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete This is indeed an important subject in the history of Misplaced Pages. However, Misplaced Pages is not required to explain its own subculture, as much as the amazingly comprehensive Criticism of Misplaced Pages article might make you think otherwise. There is a wiki called MeatBall which covers the "meta" subjects for c2.com's WikiWiki. Similarly, this article might be useful to some wiki (Meta?) which exists to preserve Misplaced Pages's history and famous debates and so forth. However, as a subject in its own right Wikinfo fails WP:WEB. It is cited in scholarly articles only as an offshoot of Misplaced Pages. Shii (tock) 01:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Cited sources do not seem to denote this subject as adequately notable. Would be happy to reconsider if additional references were added. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Good article on an interesting subject, I am baffled as to why it would be afd'd. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:ILIKEIT?! Shii (tock) 01:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC
No, I like it would be a complete misreading of my comment, I am talking about its educational value and worth tot he encyclopedia, my personal view is that its a subject that does not particularly interest me but my own view is, as you say, not relevant. Thanks, SqueakBox01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC).
It doesn't meet notability guidelines. Very little to no coverage in reliable sources. Celarnor 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I read the other AFDs a few minutes ago, and have looked through the previous AFDs, and say delete. We have three sources. One book: so far so good. Erik Moller's article: so far so good. The Journal of American History: this is good. Three sources, for one site, but no other notability? The essay at http://reagle.org/joseph/2004/agree/wikip-agree.html only mentions it trivially, so doesn't count, and Joseph Reagle he doesn't appear to be particularly notable. That said, I say delete. It's status as a fork of Misplaced Pages has no notability value in and of itself, and we have a grand total of three sources. That doesn't strike me as notable enough. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete none of the cited (neutral external) mention wikinfo other than in passing as a fork with a different philosphy - not notable. Viridae 01:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Per the 6 previous AfD's. This is an abusive nomination, suspiciously made less than 2 hours after this article was mentioned at the contentious Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD. Z00r (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • How is that in any way abusive? Viridae 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, first of all it is abusive to nominate an article again and again and again and again and again and again until finally the right set of people happen to show up and the vote works out in your favor. Secondly, it is abusive to create a nomination for one article for the purpose of affecting the outcome of another article AfD. Z00r (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • How is this abusive? Someone pointed out an article to me that was poorly cited. I nominated it for AfD. It's been more than a few months. It has nothing to do with the ED article (which I think is much better sourced and should be speedily kept). And I've never participated in a discussion on this material before. I didn't even know what it was until now. Please assume good faith. Celarnor 02:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Very well, it seems that you are acting in good faith, despite the suspect circumstance. Here are a select set of reasons, culled from the previous AfD's, that demonstrate why I think it should be kept:
        • It is notable not as a website, but as an open source project fork of a very notable project. Thus, WEB is irrelevant. (It is listed here as one of the 43 best wikis (not that it really is)). (post originally by BrokenSegue 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC))
        • Keep per my belief that this is a historically important wiki. The Misplaced Pages:Notability (web) is a guideline, not a suicide pact. (post originally by Yamaguchi先生 23:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC))
        • I find it extraordinarily disengenuous to claim that 500,000 Google hits are meaningless. It shows more a POV-pushing then a real intent to discover the facts in this case. Are you actually claiming that wikipedia has a half-million clones spewing meaningless copy pages? If we even had 10,000 bloggers mentioning wikinfo it has far surpassed the necessary bar to keep here. Just the fact alone that there are a half-million pages, makes it significant in terms of googlespansion if nothing else, and that's all we need. (post origionally by Wjhonson 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC))
        • A fork of a very well known project can be notable if t here are sources to show it's well known, and there are. Just barely, but sufficient. Paid sources are acceptable. Paid external links, no, but as sources, sure. (Post originally by DGG (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
        • Z00r (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
          • The first one of those claims WEB doesn't apply, but it still has to be notable somehow. This even fails the heavily inclusionist general notability guidelines (i.e, multiple bits of non-trivial coverage grant notability). The second one is ILIKEIT, and the third is something between ILIKEIT and THISNUMBERISHUGE. I can't really make anything out of the fourth comment, since I don't really know what independent reliable sources he's talking about. Celarnor 02:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per the fact that of the previous multiple AFDs over the course of the last 12 months alone, all but one were WP:SNOWBALL keeps. Do we need to keep revisiting this every few months? 23skidoo (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Got an answer to the claims of lack of notability. Viridae 02:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Why should anyone have to respond to claims, especially empty ones. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • None of those sources are non-trivial. Care to point out one that is? Viridae 05:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
          • The second ref doesn't look trivial, and nor does the 3rd ref though as theat is in german i cannot understand it to judge its non-triviality. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
            • You are of course aware then that that second source you refer to refers to wikiinfo once, in passing. Seems pretty trivial to me. You can also hardly use the german language source as notability - because you and i don't know what it says. (hell there is not guarantee it is even about wikiinfo) Viridae 14:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
              • The German ref does contain a paragraph about Wikinfo and NPOV but it doesn't constitute non-trivial coverage. The first ref barely mentions Wikinfo (only says it's a fork followed by a quote from Wikinfo about Misplaced Pages). Even if we assume that the German source is non-trivial coverage we are one ref short of notability. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
              • This is the first time I've heard the argument that a source must be in English in order to confer so-called notabiliy. - Nhprman 17:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Here's a Google translation (bumpy, but readable) of the German-language source ("Der Stein der Wikis" by Erik Möller 11.04.2005). The entire coverage of Wikiinfo is in the third paragraph under the "Vergabelte Content" (Vergabelte Inhalte) section. The coverage is a total of one paragraph of four sentences. It's too much of a stretch for us to interpret that as anything other than a brief summary of the nature of the content, WP:WEB's relevant definition of "trivial". Noroton (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Not substantially different from prior versions kept. MBisanz 03:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Shii above. Fails WP:WEB every way you look at it. The cited sources are either self published or trivial per our usual standards. Non-trivial means non-trivial. It isn't exactly rocket science. EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no strong opinion about this article, but in the event it is determined to not be appropriate for the article namespace, I would like to request that it be moved to the project namespace rather than just be deleted. It might be similar to a page move I did a while back for Misplaced Pages:Semapedia. Notable or not, it's probably useful information to document somewhere on the project. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB, which is the guideline for such matters. Ned Scott makes a good suggestion - as an atlernative to deletion, a move to project space would be agreeable. Neıl ☎ 10:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:WEB applies to sites we like, too. Arguing based on previous AFDs is pretty weak... just because the ballot box was stuffed before doesn't mean we have to keep electing the village idiot out of tradition. --Rividian (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Strong keep for reasons given in the previous five AfDs. This does seem a bit like "keep trying until I get the result I want"... Klausness (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment A) it can't be speedy kept when there are valid delete !votes and B) consensus can change so assume good faith and give us a source showing non-trivial coverage. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • (a) Fair enough, changed to strong keep. (b) Consensus is unlikely to change after five AfDs. I do try to assume good faith, but it's difficult to do so with a sixth AfD that gives no new reasons for deletion. As for sources, the article already has them. Klausness (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep 6th nomination? Nominations again and again... Keep per all good arguments that were written in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th nomination. --Dezidor (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete sources have not been brought to the table, so fails WP:WEB. Are we keeping this because it was started by a well-respected editor? EJF (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely and utterly fails WP:WEB by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. I'm perplexed how this was kept so many times before. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep many Misplaced Pages articles are about far less notable subjects.Barbara Shack (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm too much of an inclusionist to vote "delete" on this, but there is some hypocrisy in that some of the same people who are insisting on a really high standard of notability for ED are voting to keep this one despite a lack of coverage outside our own little wiki-universe. And people are condemning the repeated attempts at deletion here when both sides of the ED debate have practiced the "When at first you don't succeed, try try again" strategy whenever their side lost the last round. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Wikinfo is a notable growing community with a unique set of policies including Sympathetic Point of View and the ability to write Signed Articles (which are labeled as such) and the ability to grow articles that are stubs without repeated deletion attempts (not pointing any fingers here, but...) More than just a copycat encyclopedia, and worthy of continued inclusion here. Also, an excellent alternate culture to the flawed Deletionist mentality here on Misplaced Pages, which, ironically, this rather bizarre AfD process illustrates perfectly. Empty claims, urgings to read biased essays that are not policy but only guidelines, and actual policies that have been gang edited to defend rampant deletionism don't sway me, and I hope someday they stop swaying other editors here. - Nhprman 17:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Per this they are now asking former Wikipedians to come here and vote. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I see you're shocked, SHOCKED that there's solicited votes going on in AfD's. Wonder how everyone here found out about this? Not worth longwinded arguing the point here. - Nhprman
    • This is a rather disappointing bit of off-wiki canvassing. Users actively involved with a project really can't be expected to evaluate an AfD concerning that project impartially; that's only realistic. Canvassing isn't likely to change the outcome of the debate, as our admins are competent enough, but it might result in a mini train wreck. Obviously users who don't contribute here aren't bound to en-wp policies like WP:CANVAS, but this seems plainly unconstructive. — xDanielx /C\ 22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Point one: I hope no one ever edits about things they know about. That would be rather "impartial" wouldn't it? (sarcasm) For the record, I've never edited this article. Secondly about canvasing, you're kidding, right? How did YOU discover this page - was Wikinfo on your watchlist already? Doubtful. In every single AfD I've ever participated in, I've seen a HUGE amount of canvassing, largely from Admins, and in fact, this page is listed on at least TWO lists of active AfDs, directing people, in effect, to go and delete this article. Thirdly, you should WP:AGF and not assume that those who are coming to this page aren't also regular, longtime WP editors as well, as I am. Not that others don't heve every right ot be here and speak out, too. Believe me, some of these Wikinfo editors know very well what goes on here and what the policies are. (And that's why they're at Wikinfo now.) Finally, WP:CANVAS urges "common sense" when applying this guideline, not the standard rigidity that these essays are often interpreted to require. - Nhprman 00:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, I arrived here via a link on another AfD; no that's not inappropriate canvassing. WP:CANVAS makes the distinction clear -- AfDs generally don't have prejudicial audiences, while Wikinfo does (in the context of an AfD for Wikinfo, that is). This is why transcluding an AfD on the daily list of AfDs isn't considered inappropriate canvassing. It is also inappropriate, according to the same guidelines (which I think are very sensible), to engage in off-wiki canvassing without disclosing it on-wiki.
        • I'm all for "leaving it to the experts" where appropriate, but I'm not really convinced that general en-wp editors are unqualified to judge this without assistance. It's the same software (well, a fork with minimal differences), most of the relevant info (sources, wiki stats, etc.) is trivially easy to obtain, and most of us here have considerable familiarity with the project whether we choose to participate there or not.
        • If the Encyclopedia Dramatica folks engaged in the same sort of off-wiki, undisclosed canvassing for the ED AfD, would you consider it appropriate? Presumably not. Wikinfo may have more noble aspirations, but it's only reasonable to expect partiality from Wikinfo editors participating in this AfD. Perhaps the canvassing was done in good faith, it's just disappointing to see very reasonable (and intuitive) guidelines being neglected like this. — xDanielx /C\ 05:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of reliable independent sources about the subject, rather than mere passing mentions. Does not meet notability standards. I am disappointed by the canvassing that that has been shown to have taken place regarding this discussion, which I hope the closing admin will take into account. WjBscribe 23:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Has enough sources to establish notability. This is an Otherstuffexists nom, as this all came out of the ED nom. Seriously, do we only want to delete this because it criticises Misplaced Pages? Don't we have more dignity than that? I'm an Editorofthewiki 00:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I note with some amusement that the 2nd nomination for deletion of Wikinfo's article here "seems to have been initiated by a vandal's sockpuppet" according to the person who nonetheless took up the baton on that deletion attempt, and the 4th nomination for deletion started with the bold statement "Note I have a bit of an anti-Wikinfo bias, because I have been vicously trolled and harassed by Fred Bauder, the admin of the site." Why this was allowed to get to a 6th deletion attempt is beyond me, given the outright bias presented in previous attempts, which often amounted to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Nhprman 01:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Because it needs an objective analysis from editors to decide whether or not this can stay without meeting notability guidelines without the influence of ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT. Celarnor 02:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep abusive nomination. Previous history: 2 keeps, a non-consensus, the another 2 keeps. There should be a clear policy against eve doing this. the present situation is asymmetrical--after a single delete it cant be recreated without deletion review, but after any number of keeps anyone can just go and try again until by chance the atmosphere is right. Lets say there's a 10% error rate each way at AfD in making the correct decision. Obviously, if you keep at the articler enough, theodds will be overwhelming that you'll succeed once--and once is enough. Like shooting at a target till you eventually chance to hit. You may miss 90% of the time, but eventually you'll get there no matter how inaccurate. Not that consensus has changed, or your skill has improved. DGG (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I am unconvinced that the mere number of AfDs or DRVs is sufficient to keep or delete any article or protect that article from further such discussions. Multiple such discussions in an unreasonable period of time is certainly a problem. The most recent AfD for this article was many months ago so this AfD does not seem unreasonable to me. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I *AM* convinced. DGG lays out perfectly the Deletionist tactic of "trial until guilty." This is an obvious tactic to reduce content on Misplaced Pages regardless of how many times the attempt has failed to generate consensus. If the article has been degraded in any way, the Deletionists here should please note why and how it has changed for the worst since the last 5 deletion attempts. If ANY improvements have been made, then the case for deletion is EVEN WEAKER than before, and it's even MORE insulated from deletion than in the past. IMO, the actually argument grows even weaker with each passing attempt. Unless of course the argument is "We didn't attract enough deletionists in the past," Then the AfD process is kind of exposed for what it is - a content deletion mechanism, at all costs. - Nhprman 02:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Wikinfo shows up with 91,000 google hits. Encyclopedia Dramatica shows up with 146,000 google hits. How many Google hits exactly defines "notable"? Keep it. Besides which, its philosophy lays right alongside Wikpedia with that single, particular difference, "sympathetic point of view", making an obvious comparison for those interested in tracing Wiki developments. Jim Bough (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Shii says it all really, and yes, it is less notable than Encyclopedia Dramatica. Also (and although this does not correlate with notability) it has an extremely low Alexa ranking.--AnonymousUser12345 (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just enough coverage to indicate notability. Those 404s need to be fixed though! Bill 12:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Move into the Misplaced Pages namespace. Not much in the way of independent coverage; the blind assumption of notability put forward by others here reflects a Misplaced Pages-centric bias. Mackensen (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB per various comments above (rather blatantly in fact). All sources are only a passing mention. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It's very simple. WP:WEB requires multiple sources that are not trivial in amount of coverage. There are three independent sources of potentially non-trivial information cited at this article. One of them is behind a $10 subscription wall. The other two meet the WP:WEB description of trivial amount: a brief summary of the nature of the content. Every other argument amounts smoke blowing, contrary to AfD deletion policy as described at WP:DGFA#Rough Consensus, and that guideline instructs closing admins to discount !votes contrary to Misplaced Pages standards, logic or the facts. Do we follow the notability guidelines or not? Do we have a single standard for both the articles/subjects we like and the one's we don't? Anyone voting differently here than at the Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD should really think about explaining the difference, because there's a rotton stench of hypocrisy in the air (there can be reasons for voting differently -- for instance, there are more sources cited there than here -- but if you don't explain them, it looks like hypocrisy). The information can be moved into Misplaced Pages space, as Ned Scott suggested above (timestamp 04:44, 16 May), which is where non-notable subjects of interest to Wikipedians belong. Noroton (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I would support a move to the Misplaced Pages namespace. I don't have a problem with the Misplaced Pages namespace being used for that purpose and the article could live a quiet and undisturbed life there. Seems like a sensible compromise to me. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Abusive nomination and there is enough substantial secondary coverage by reliable independent sources to warrant inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Inclusion of this AfD on a "Wikiproject:Deletions" page is Canvasing by another name, although the effect of posting it on that page - and others - is "come delete stuff" rather than the "come save stuff" that is more likely through individual invitations or postings on articles and wikis with similiar interests. There is simply no difference. If one is illegitimate, than so is the other (although the deletionists probably have created a few clever essays to justify these 'projects,' which I find contrary to a positive article-creating encyclopedic experience.)- Nhprman 02:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If you can point to two non-trivial, secondary reliable sources, that would mean this passed notability guidelines and I'll withdraw this right now. Celarnor 02:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Here is what they are trying to pass off as non-trivial coverage from the The Journal of American History article: As Wikinfo (a fork, or spin-off, from Misplaced Pages) explains: "A wiki with so many hundreds of thousands of pages is bound to get some things wrong. The problem is, that because Misplaced Pages has become the 'AOL' of the library and reference world, such false information and incorrect definitions of terms become multiple incompetences, propagated to millions of potential readers world-wide." It's not about Wikinfo - it's about Misplaced Pages! Oh, and I want my money back! EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, the Telepolis article has a paragraph about Wikinfo, as does the extended version of the Forschung & Lehre article (I don't have access to the published version, so I don't know what that has). I think those do (barely) qualify as non-trivial, and the sources appear to be reliable (assuming that the published version of the second article includes the Wikinfo stuff). Klausness (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - regardless of the good-faith or otherwise of the nomination, this website simply doesn't seem to satisfy WP:RS. I count only one source that provides significant coverage. (Oh, and if it matters - I !voted exactly the same way on ED, I don't think either of them pass WP:WEB.)Terraxos (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Very useful as a pressure valve in heated debates when people want unsourced opinions here - as in Write a Wikinfo article if you want your opinion published or That is what Wikinfo is for - and look how popular that is. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • What does that have to do with including a Misplaced Pages article on it? There are lots of places you could theoretically go if you were annoyed with Misplaced Pages... that doesn't mean we have to have an article on every one of them. --Rividian (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Categories: